medium format digital back question for contax 645

[dan dumitru]

Currently I am shooting with a contax 645 with film and an acra-swiss 4x5 with film for both landscapes and architecture and using a hasselblad (former flextight) scanner. I would like to switch to an all digital workflow but was wondering if anyone could recommend a system (phase or hasselblad) that has lenses capable of delivering that hard to quantify 3-D quality that my contax 645 and high end rodenstock lenses can deliver. I would appreciate any comments on the phase/mamyia lenses versus hasselblad lenses regarding this 3 dimensional “feel”. Unfortunately I live in a rather rural area very far from any large city and cannot test these systems side-by-side and would appreciate user input. I did consider getting a phase back (p45+) for the contax system but the contax system is dated and obviously not specifically designed for digital even though I could use the back on the contax and arca-swiss with an adapter.  Also, I don't know how much longer the contax camera will hold out.   I wish I could just use my contax lenses on a hasselblad or phase camera but could not find an adapter (contacted zoerk-no go) and of course the hasselblad is a closed system.  So, the short of it is regarding lenses that produce dimensionality as opposed to a more flat look in the final print. I appreciate any input that can be provided particularly from those who have used the contax 645 lenses in the past.


Thank you,

dan

[siba]

Hello Dan, I'm not an ex contax 645 user who has moved on to some other platform - I shoot with my contax 645 and a phase one P45. I thought I'd make a few comments though, which may or may not be helpful.

I've been using a P45 back on my contax 645 for the last 3 years. I shoot a mixed variety of situations for work. Please feel free to see my web site. wwwstefansiba.com. Almost exclusively the photos are from the P45 on the contax. I've taken 60 000 shots with it and am constantly amazed at the quality.

If you are as attached to the contax as many contax 645 users are, then I don't necessarily see a problem with staying with it. You can pick up a body for very little if it stops working. There are always bodies in good condition going on ebay.

I mainly use my 35mm, 45mm, and 80mm, and feel that there is a quality to my images which is down to these lenses. Especially the 80 when open. I wouldn't want to give that up.

The only limits I find are with the ISO limitations of the P45 back, but not with the camera. However, if you're shooting architecture and landscape then this isn't an issue.

Careful, though, one important consideration for architecture and landcape is that with the P45 back on the contax one cannot use a shutter release cable. Or, if so then you have to do it via a complicated adapter system. I'm fairly certain this is also the case with the p45+.

If you have any specific questions concerning using the contax 645 and a P45 back then let me know

Cheers
Stefan

[tho_mas]

the contax system is dated and obviously not specifically designed for digital even though I could use the back on the contax and arca-swiss with an adapter.

In the consequence of this poll - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32734 ...
there was a thread "why contax refuses to die"  - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32908
maybe worth reading...

one important consideration for architecture and landcape is that with the P45 back on the contax one cannot use a shutter release cable.

maybe I get you wrong here but what kind of shutter release cable you are referring to? You can release the Contax directly via shutter release cable and you can release the Contax also when shooting tethered via Capture One (you need a small cable to connect the P45 with the Contax).

http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/645/feature...turesright.html
[attachment=16965:contax_sr.jpg]

[gwhitf]

Contax is not going anywhere. If you own the lenses, and you like them, I'd stick with Contax. The bodies are solid, and they seem to rarely go down. The lenses rock. It's not modern/sexy, but you own it, and they're paid for. But I don't care where you live, even outer Siberia, anyone is an idiot if they don't write a rental check, and test this stuff yourself. You sound like you're just now getting into all this, and there is a ton to learn, and it's not just snapping your fingers to get comfortable. Don't cheapass out; rent the gear and test it under your own conditions before you write the big check. Because all of MF is depreciating badly; if you want to really spend the big money, then buy the wrong system...

[michele]

I think you should look deeper in the kind of workflow you are looking for. You are used to the film, digital is not the same thing, if you want a 3-D look you need to work with postproduction, not around lenses. Infact you can start with a very flat shot, that is very common with an untuched raw file, and with just few steps in the raw developer or in photoshop end up with a terrific 3-D file... Film is something that digital is not. We should try to do what digital can do, not try to make digital pretending to be film... Personally i find Phase One the best tool for my style. Of course there are lenses better then others, with more sharpness with more contrast. But when it comes to feeling and look, give me 5 minutes with photoshop. This is an example, the first one right from Capture One and then from photoshop...

[bcooter]

Contax is not going anywhere. If you own the lenses, and you like them, I'd stick with Contax. The bodies are solid, and they seem to rarely go down. The lenses rock. It's not modern/sexy, but you own it, and they're paid for. But I don't care where you live, even outer Siberia, anyone is an idiot if they don't write a rental check, and test this stuff yourself. You sound like you're just now getting into all this, and there is a ton to learn, and it's not just snapping your fingers to get comfortable. Don't cheapass out; rent the gear and test it under your own conditions before you write the big check. Because all of MF is depreciating badly; if you want to really spend the big money, then buy the wrong system...

I'm partial to the contax, actually more so the camera than the actual digital backs, but unless you need the 28mm the Hasselblad offers, you won't gain anything in image quality going from the Contax to any other medium format camera.

In fact they are smoother, have less mirror shake and since they have a digital interface are just as modern as anything that is out there now, with the exception of leaf shutter lenses, which shouldn't matter in your type of work.

They are also the only medium format camera with a 90 degree grip and have two battery systems.

They're not perfect, have a smaller viewfinder than the Hasselblad, but that is probably the reason they are so smooth.

I don't know about the new DAC corrections (though I think a lot of software programs correct for paralax), but I do know that the Contax lenses are very sharp and sharp is sharp plus they're pretty much faster across the range than any other system.

The best part of the Contax is you own it and for a few hundred more can buy a back up and I've never been to a city, even medium sized where I couldn't find a Contax body and lenses.

I agree to test first, exactly in the conditions you shoot in and test them away from anyone so you can just work in the style you work to see if it's a good fit for you.

The self timer is a well thought out action, as it moves the mirror away, waits a second or so then fires.  It's smooth, but if you want or need longer exposures on bulb, just tape over the contacts of the lens.

There are cable releases on e-bay a the time.

If you look around, you probably can get in for less than $10,000 easy and if you really do your homework, much less than $10,000.

Don't look at this cameras as an investment, at least on the digital portion, because the prices drop quickly the moment you buy.  Find your camera system, then pick the back that works for you.

The only investment in these specialty cameras is if it improves your work, your enjoyment and you use them a lot.


IMO

BC

[Doug Peterson]

I don't know about the new DAC corrections (though I think a lot of software programs correct for paralax), but I do know that the Contax lenses are very sharp and sharp is sharp plus they're pretty much faster across the range than any other system.

When using a Phase One digital back you will have lens corrections within your standard raw workflow for:
Contax Zeiss 35mm
Contax Zeiss 45mm
Contax Zeiss 55mm
Contax Zeiss 80mm
Contax Zeiss 140mm

In addition you can do custom adjustments to any additional lenses you might have including for distortion, sharpness falloff, vignetting/light-falloff, purple fringing, chromatic abberation, and color cast.

While you can find a lot of backs for "cheap" on eBay or forums, I would encourage you to
1) talk to a dealer - they don't have to be local to become a trusted resource and point of support
2) choose the system you want first - and THEN look for a "deal", rather than working the other way around

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe

[bcooter]

if you want to really spend the big money, then buy the wrong system...

The thing about testing and learning medium format is the cameras and workflow are much more complicated than a dslr.

To begin with you will have to generate jpegs for web galleries and previews, which usually means batch processing.  For you that may only be twenty frames a day, for me 1,000 and when working in a hurry, working fast, especially on location you need to learn the software front the back.

There is also tethering.  All these backs tether different depending on the software.  I still tether with c-1 V. 3 point something because it's stable, I know it, and for setting adjustments I find it faster and easier than the version 4 softwares.

There is also small differences between backs and sensors.  In my experience the Dalsa sensored backs do not do any kind of long exposures well, the kodak sensors do, especially the Phase.

If you look at the phase the only real difference between the plus and the non plus backs is when tethering, because you can set a plus back to run off of a battery when tethering, which can be an issue because all macs have way different voltage that comes out of the firewire ports.

Also the phase backs allow you to tether and see the image on the back of the camera as well as the computer screen. I don't know about Hasselblad, but Leaf backs don't allow the back to be powered by the battery because the battery is in the way and previous Leaf backs don't give you a view of the lcd when tethered.   The Phase backs lcds are not very good but at least you can see the composition.

In fact I like the non plus lcd's better than the plus because they worked in bright sunlight and the plus don't.

Once again you really have to learn these cameras and software and try hard not to become a non paid beta tester.  IMO, stay one step back and let someone else take the hit on the learning curve and expense.

Also from my experience don't get caught up in a gear frenzy.  The latest and greatest is rarely noticeable in print, if noticeable at all.

Find a proven system, get the best deal, learn it front to back and enjoy it.

I have few if any clients that notice the camera I shoot with, (well except for that little Leica) but there is something nice about the Contax's because I've had them for so long I know them well they're easy to use and they always work.



BC

[tho_mas]

if you want or need longer exposures on bulb, just tape over the contacts of the lens

the contacts of the lens? how can you adjust the aperture then? actually i don't use bulb but what i've tried once or twice was to put a sheet of paper on the contacts of the DB so that there is no communication from the camera to the back... and then release the back with the wakeup cable (connected to the flash sync)...
i.e.
1. wake up back
2. release camera
3. stop exposure on camera
4. stop exposure on the back

works quite good.

[tho_mas]

If you look at the phase the only real difference between the plus and the non plus backs is when tethering, because you can set a plus back to run off of a battery when tethering, which can be an issue because all macs have way different voltage that comes out of the firewire ports.

I always run my P45 (non-plus) with the battery when shooting tethered... What you are talking about maybe was an issue with earlier firmwares?

[bcooter]

I always run my P45 (non-plus) with the battery when shooting tethered... What you are talking about maybe was an issue with earlier firmwares?

Your probably right.  I don't remember because I had the non plus back for a short time before the plus came in.

I actually like the non plus back, especially the lcd in sunlgiht  and the fact it seemed to use less power.

I will say that one of the earliest failings of all medium format backs is not to have a back that doesn't require a dedicated mount, or require a $2,500 charge to change the back (or the super duper warranty).

I've know about 4 people that went into a dealer cash in hand to buy a back for  their contax, only to find few dealers had a contax mount.

You always here this open closed system argument, but the real open system would be a back that just required a simple adapter to fit on any of the main 645 cameras.

I have one friend that is a good amateur photographer that has always shot film and loves his contax.  He went to a large dealer in the largest city in the U.S. just to buy a back, of course the dealer only had them in a specific mount and of course the dealer "suggested" he changed camera systems, consequently he left with nothing.

I also think one of the issues with any digital camera is the disposable nature of these things, that includes backs and the dslrs.

The dslrs are the worst because from one Canon to the next the menu is different, the buttons are different and you can figure them out, but once they become second nature, then boom, your own to the next.

I know in the electronic world we're suppose to box everything up every 12 months, toss it in the rubbish bin and buy the newest, but it gets old constantly upgrading for small incremental changes and they also come with a hitch.  A new lens requires a new body, a new back requires a different computer and every new software requires 5 versions before it's really right.  

Regardless of the costs it's just too much in time lost and seems incredibly wasteful to keep tossing good stuff away.  

I can review my body of work for the last 6  or seven years in digital and not see any difference between what I used today vs. what I used then.  

Sure maybe at 100% peering into a monitor, deep into the shadows it's somewhat different but not wow, that changed my life different.

I don't use the Contax's that much anymore, but probably will keep them forever because I can go three months and not touch one and the moment I pick it up I know where everythng is, how everything works and I just shoot.

BC

[tho_mas]

I actually like the non plus back, especially the lcd in sunlgiht  and the fact it seemed to use less power.

and the fact that they are noticable cheaper however at base ISO still awesome IQ wise...
The plus series have some nice additions to the firmware i.e. when using long exposure there is a timer (counting the exposure and count down the read out time) and the plus backs read the exposure time when shooting with tech cameras (the non-plus record ISO only).
Regarding the LCD I couldn't care less... I agree: you can see the composition. And the histogram. I don't need it for anything else (though I have to admit live view would be great with the view camera). The non plus LCDs work quite okay in daylight though the displayed image has less contrast as the plus LCD and it looks quite smooth and noisy. Then again: I use the display as a confirmation that "something" has been recorded and to control exposure (histogram) ...

[Lawrie_Hope]

Currently I am shooting with a contax 645 with film and an acra-swiss 4x5 with film for both landscapes and architecture and using a hasselblad (former flextight) scanner. I would like to switch to an all digital workflow but was wondering if anyone could recommend a system (phase or hasselblad) that has lenses capable of delivering that hard to quantify 3-D quality that my contax 645 and high end rodenstock lenses can deliver. I would appreciate any comments on the phase/mamyia lenses versus hasselblad lenses regarding this 3 dimensional “feel”. Unfortunately I live in a rather rural area very far from any large city and cannot test these systems side-by-side and would appreciate user input. I did consider getting a phase back (p45+) for the contax system but the contax system is dated and obviously not specifically designed for digital even though I could use the back on the contax and arca-swiss with an adapter.  Also, I don't know how much longer the contax camera will hold out.   I wish I could just use my contax lenses on a hasselblad or phase camera but could not find an adapter (contacted zoerk-no go) and of course the hasselblad is a closed system.  So, the short of it is regarding lenses that produce dimensionality as opposed to a more flat look in the final print. I appreciate any input that can be provided particularly from those who have used the contax 645 lenses in the past.


Thank you,

dan

Hi Dan,
Other postees are right, the Contax lenses will give fabulous quality and the bodies are proving very reliable. why shell out for lenses and bodies when your current one is more than capable, but don't ignore the Leaf Aptus range, user-friendly GUI, simple software and fabulous image quality.

[yaya]

Currently I am shooting with a contax 645 with film and an acra-swiss 4x5 with film for both landscapes and architecture and using a hasselblad (former flextight) scanner. I would like to switch to an all digital workflow but was wondering if anyone could recommend a system (phase or hasselblad) that has lenses capable of delivering that hard to quantify 3-D quality that my contax 645 and high end rodenstock lenses can deliver. I would appreciate any comments on the phase/mamyia lenses versus hasselblad lenses regarding this 3 dimensional “feel”. Unfortunately I live in a rather rural area very far from any large city and cannot test these systems side-by-side and would appreciate user input. I did consider getting a phase back (p45+) for the contax system but the contax system is dated and obviously not specifically designed for digital even though I could use the back on the contax and arca-swiss with an adapter.  Also, I don't know how much longer the contax camera will hold out.   I wish I could just use my contax lenses on a hasselblad or phase camera but could not find an adapter (contacted zoerk-no go) and of course the hasselblad is a closed system.  So, the short of it is regarding lenses that produce dimensionality as opposed to a more flat look in the final print. I appreciate any input that can be provided particularly from those who have used the contax 645 lenses in the past.


Thank you,

dan

Hello Dan,

You can see some extraordinary landscape work on Lonna Tucker's site, mostly done on Contax and Arca Swiss with a high resolution digital back.

If there is one single drawback to the Contax it would be long exposures (limited to 8 seconds with most digital backs) but then you have the Arca Swiss for that...

Enjoy

Yair

[tho_mas]

If there is one single drawback to the Contax it would be long exposures (limited to 8 seconds with most digital backs)

Yair, as long as the respective digital backs work on a view camera you can use bulb with the Contax (see my post #9 above)

[Doug Peterson]

If there is one single drawback to the Contax it would be long exposures (limited to 8 seconds with most digital backs) but then you have the Arca Swiss for that...

We've used and tested this device for use doing long exposures with Contax.

This allows unlimited shutter releases and use of bulb to accomplish any length exposure with ease.

As Thomas points out you can also accomplish the same thing without this device; it simply makes it more intuitive and easy.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe

[yaya]

Yair, as long as the respective digital backs work on a view camera you can use bulb with the Contax (see my post #9 above)

I know of several other workarounds but they are still workarounds...

[siba]

maybe I get you wrong here but what kind of shutter release cable you are referring to? You can release the Contax directly via shutter release cable and you can release the Contax also when shooting tethered via Capture One (you need a small cable to connect the P45 with the Contax).

http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/645/feature...turesright.html
[attachment=16965:contax_sr.jpg]

Pays to post a reply. I'm now wiser.

Thanks Tho_mas. I've been shooting three years with the contax without even noticing the shutter release socket. It's hidden a little underneath the phase back when you have the battery grip attached. I guess I never needed it enough to stop and consider that contax wouldn't have left it out of their design. I was referring to the bulb cable release on the right side of the camera.

And that's what that little cable is for that came with my back. Great!

cheers
Stefan